Appeal No. 1998-0646
Application No. 08/485,269
Wright et al. (Wright) 4,900,904 Feb. 13, 1990
Hikita et al. (Hikita) 4,901,237 Feb. 13, 1990
Claims 201-212 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Wright in view of Hikita.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Dec. 18, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10, filed Dec. 1, 1997) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants’ basic argument throughout the brief is that Hikita does not teach storing
1
the “means for periodically communicating with a remote computer to transmit
said data relating to transaction records from said memory to said remote computer,
We have reviewed the specification and find no express recitation that the communication is1
periodic, but the examiner has not raised the issue so we make no further comment.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007